Sunday, November 5

The End of Two Tyrants

Saddam has been sentenced to death after being found guilty of crimes to humanity.

As the sentence will be appealed automatically, it will be reviewed to appeal judges to decide whether or not to accept the appeal. And if the appeal is rejected, then Saddam will be executed by hanging within 30 days, as the law says.

Saddam protested on the sentence, as he requested to be executed by a firing squad because he still claims to be the president of Iraq and the supreme general of the Iraqi armed forces.

Dream on dude, you are so dead anyway.

The curtains went down on the play of Saddam’s trial as the 2006 mid term elections are just a couple of days to come. In these elections Americans will elect all 435 members of the House of Representatives as well as one third of the Senate’s members. In addition, 36 states will elect their governors. These elections should greatly affect the US domestic and foreign policy in deciding which party is going to control and what policies will be applied in the soon future.

The imprudent administration of the United States thought that by finishing the play of Saddam’s trial they could appeal to more people that they were finally able to achieve their fake victory in Iraq. One would definitely argue now that ‘evil’ is removed from Iraq and the situation is on its way to be perfect soon. Americans and people of the world are smarter than this. Evil will always remain in Iraq until the US administration completely pulls out all its troops from here.

What the US administration did not want to happen, is a poll made by the Canadian CTV less than two weeks ago. The survey was done in 4 countries. The (vast) majority of three of the four countries (Israel is the exception) believed that the US foreign policy has made the world a less safe place since 2001. George W. Bush was put on the top three most dangerous leaders of the world. Below I am quoting the details of the survey from the CTV website (link):

United States policy has made the world a more dangerous place and President George Bush is among the leaders who pose the greatest threat to peace, four new polls suggest.

The polls were conducted ahead of Tuesday's U.S. mid-term elections, which many expect to hinge on the issue of the Iraq war.

A majority of people surveyed in three out of four countries rejected the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The polls were conducted by EKOS for the Toronto Star and Montreal's La Presse in Canada, and by other polling firms for newspapers in Britain, Mexico and Israel.

The survey suggests 62 per cent of Canadian respondents believe Bush has made the world less safe since he became president in 2001. The poll also indicates 34 per cent of Canadians felt Bush is a "great danger" to the world.

Canadians declared the American president the world's third most dangerous leader, behind North Korea's Kim Jong Il. Top spot went to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was fourth, while Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was fifth.

The most pessimistic responses came from Britain, where 69 per cent of people said American foreign policy has made the world less safe since 2001.

In fact, British respondents said Bush poses an even greater danger than Kim Jong Il.

"I think the primary issue that's driving public opinion about Bush in this country is the mess in Iraq right now," CTV's London Bureau Chief Tom Kennedy said Friday on Newsnet.

"This country never really supported the war, in spite of the fact that British Prime Minister Tony Blair tied himself to Bush and participated in the war in Iraq. And I think that's really dragged down public opinion about George Bush and I think, as well, about Tony Blair."

Canadians, meanwhile, have overwhelmingly soured on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the poll suggests, with 73 per cent saying Washington had no justification for it. When EKOS asked Canadians the same question in April 2003 after the U.S. invasion, 53 per cent thought it was unjustified.

Israel was the only country where respondents were in favour of the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- with 59 per cent for the war and 34 per cent against. Only 23 per cent of Israelis said they felt Bush was a serious danger, with 61 percent disagreeing.

The survey was conducted in late October and involved about 1,000 people from each country. The results are considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.


The Bush administration cannot hide their fears from these elections. Experts add to that that these elections could result in Divided US government, which should affect the US foreign policy and have serious implications on Bush’s agenda (link).

The people of the United States must take every possible act, from participation to persuasion and raising awareness (link), to make an effect in these elections, to put as much pressure as possible on Chaney’s government to make them pull the troops from Iraq as early as yesterday.


rita said...

It may just be me, although I don't think so, but I'm sure Iraq has much bigger problems than Saddam now. While recognizing that there were better ways to remove Saddam than through an invasion, I was for the war just for the simple fact that he would be removed. But, I see that was a major mistake and the US needs to get out now and let whatever happens happen, because it cannot possibly get much worse than it is currently. Ah well, we'll see . . .

Anonymous said...

I know this is off topic, but why are the Iraqi people being left unemployed, while foreign construction workers are building in Iraq?

Anonymous said...

November 08, 2006

Fitzgerald: May both sides win
Keith Ellison, the new Muslim Congressman from Minnesota, "advocated quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq," according to this article.

My view exactly. Yet I am not a Muslim, and do not wish Islam and its Jihad well. Does this mean that I am dead wrong in my views, because I appear to agree with Keith Ellison, or he with me? Or is it something else? Is it what one might understand better if we stand back and think what, objectively, would happen if the Americans withdrew?

I think as soon as the Americans withdraw, there will be all kinds of shrill cries in Iraq, coming from both some Sunnis and some Shi'a, for the Americans not to go. The Sunnis will realize that it is the Americans who are protecting them from the Shi'a militia. Other Sunnis, possibly a majority, will be delighted, for they are convinced that somehow, though outnumbered three-to-one by the Shi'a, they possess the necessary training, the organization, the ruthlessness, and the ability to count on Sunni volunteers coming from Syria (70% Sunni, though Shi'a missionaries from Iran have been given free rein by Bashir al-Assad), Egypt, Jordan, and of course the Gulf. And they are relying, too, on equipment and money coming from the Saudis, who similarly supplied Saddam Hussein during his war against Shi'a Iran (why, I even know someone who painted over the markings on the American-supplied Saudi tanks then shipped to Iraq), not to mention the tens of billions that the U.A.E. and Kuwait "loaned" Saddam Hussein for his Sunni Arab crusade against "the Persians."

And some of the Shi'a, too, will suddenly be eager to have the Americans stay, for they calculate that they need the American soldiers to stay and fight and die just a little longer -- as long as they stick to killing Sunnis. And of course the training those Shi'a volunteers are receiving for what the Americans call the "Iraqi" army and the "Iraqi" police is also valuable. And finally, the longer the Americans stay, the more stuff -- money, projects, and above all military equipment -- is likely to be given to, or fall into the hands of, the Shi'a-dominated Iraqi government. Others, such as Moqtada al-Sadr, never cared for the Americans, and still others, including those disinclined to disarm the militias ("those Americans can't be serious, can they?"), may now feel it is time for those heretofore amazingly pliant and gullible Americans (well, no longer the officers and men, but the civilians in Washington whom those officers and men have been taught to unquestioningly obey) to leave.

And what will happen in the Muslim world? Oh, crowing, of all kinds. Crowing from somewhere in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yes, we won, we won, the Americans have had to leave. And that apparently is what some in the Administration are so scared of.

But they need not be. For if they leave, and when they leave, the natural centrifugal forces, whirring away, will cause Sunnis and Shi'a to be unable to compromise. Or if they do enter into any kind of compromise, it will immediately be broken by one side or the other or both, for it will be impossible for the Sunnis to accept their new status, and impossible for the Shi'a Arabs to share power and money in the way that the Sunnis demand. And if the Americans think that enlarging the pie by giving potentially-rich Iraq even more American -- i.e., Infidel -- money will bring about that spirit of compromise that is so foreign to, and so inimical to, Islam, they are only proving that their ignorance of Islam and the psychology of Muslims is nearly total. And being unable to compromise, they will fight.

And Muslims being Muslims, and Sunni Arabs regarding the land of the most glorious Abbasid Caliphate as important to their own history and their own identity, will never permit the Shi'a, those quasi-Persians, to win Iraq, and will offer their co-religionists every aid. And so will the Shi'a in Iran, which is not the same thing as saying that the Shi'a Arabs will necessarily wish their own state to be incorporated into a larger Shi'a state ruled from Tehran, just because they accept such aid -- money, men, materiel.

And as the American squandering of resources -- men, money, materiel -- is replaced almost overnight by a situation in which the squandering of resources is that of Muslim states and peoples whose money, men, and materiel are now being used up, the shrill voices expressing delight over "the defeat of America" will grow fainter. And as the conflict reverberates, as for example when the Shi'a in Bahrain, or Kuwait, or Al-Hasa become inspired by the conflict in Iraq to act up, and then to bring down the Sunni Arabs behaving as those Sunni Arabs will, and as the Sunnis in Pakistan attack, as they will, the Shi'a in Pakistan, and as Hizballah volunteers possibly march off to help fellow Shi'a in Iraq (and seen off at the station -- the one existing in their imaginations -- by deliriously happy Christians and Druse and even Sunni Muslims), and as the unstated American goal becomes, it is clear, no longer that messianic foolishness about making Muslim states happy and prosperous, but rather working to exploit the natural fissures -- ethnic and sectarian that are most obvious in, though hardly limited to, Iraq -- all sense of triumph over America, of having defeated America, will fade.

And then there is the matter of an independent Kurdistan. That too, spells trouble for the Arabs and for the unity of Islam. For Islam has always been a vehicle for Arab imperialism. Anwar Shaikh rightly titled one of his analyses of Islam "The Arab National Religion." An independent Kurdistan (with arrangements made for an enclave for Iraqi Christians, their safety to be guaranteed, on pain of loss of all American support, by the people and government of Kurdistan) will not only unsettle the Kurdish regions of Iran and Syria (causing migraines in both regimes) but ideally would raise, for non-Arab Muslims everywhere, the promise that they too might throw off Arab domination. Think only of the Berbers in North Africa, and think too of the Berbers in France, who might be turned against the Arabs in the same immigrant population, with useful results not least for the French security services.

The spectacle of internecine warfare not only promises to divide and demoralize the Camp of Islam. No, it will also serve as a Demonstration Project to Infidels. Let them see how, without well-meaning Infidels to bring aid of all kinds and to keep the peace and to prevent one side or the other from behaving with their wonted barbarity (just read the reports of the corpses found murdered by Shi'a or Sunni militias or insurgents or irregulars or, for that matter, by members of regular army and police units), Muslims treat each other.

For time now needs to be bought, and Infidels tutored in the ways of Islam. There is no better way than to remove the controversial American presence in Iraq that so gets in the way of a clear-sighted view from a distance, a pisgah-sight of Islam, that many Infidels need.

Oh, there'll be much mafficking among Muslims when the Americans leave. It will last a week, maybe a month, maybe two.

But not longer. And if the Administration has any sense, it will turn its attention to Western Europe, just as soon as the more-in-sorrow withdrawal is first announced and then quickly put into effect (with possibly just a very small force left in Kurdistan to help protect the Christians or oversee their exodus to Lebanon or possibly the "West Bank," but only as part of a population exchange with local Muslim Arabs). It will turn its attention to checking or disrupting in Europe the campaigns of Da'wa, and to changing immigration policies and supporting those in Europe who wish to do the same, and to engaging in propaganda to demoralize the camp of Islam and Jihad. (Hint: Karen Hughes is not the right person for this job; Ali Sina, and Wafa Sultan, and Ibn Warraq should be consulted at every step on the staffing, and on the lines of information and argument to be disseminated; no more "life in America for Muslims is great" and no more rock music and other wonderful examples of Western decadence that do nothing to win or at least unsettle minds.)

So yes, I agree with Keith Ellison that the American forces should leave Iraq forthwith. But not for the same reasons.

Who do you think is right? Do you think an American withdrawal will be a victory for Islam, or do you think an American withdrawal will not only conserve our reserves, preserve or halt the degradation in the quality of our armed forces just in time, and help to divide and demoralize the camp of Islam and Jihad?

There are those who are indifferent to Islam, but not indifferent to the environment. Such people may have no interest in, or be completely unaware of, both the menace of Jihad and how important it is to reduce the OPEC oil revenues which supply the "money weapon" that is one of the main instruments of Jihad, without which the building and maintaining of mosques and madrasas all over the West, and the vast campaigns of Da'wa, and the employment of armies of Western hirelings to promote or defend Islam and the agenda of Islam, in government, in business, in the media, in the universities, would not be possible. But objectively, in their desire to rescue the world from environmental degradation, they are the allies of all those who are most concerned about the worldwide Jihad, or its local components.

And those who worry about the Jihad, and have concluded that the most important task is to reduce the use of oil and gas, may have little in common with members of some environmental groups, but objectively they will work for the very same goal -- a goal which will be pursued by some to save the natural world, and pursued by others to save, in a sense, the manmade world, or at least the world made somewhat better, somewhat more interesting, by all those names to be found in, say, the Index to Jacques Barzun's "From Dawn to Decadence."

In similar fashion, some of those who want the Americans out of Iraq do so for reasons I deplore and abhor. One such person is Keith Ellison. But the policy in Iraq that he desires is exactly what I desire. For I know what will follow, and I welcome it. He does not know. He, just like many Sunnis in Iraq now convinced they will win, or like those people in the West who are convinced that "of course Iran will just take over" -- doesn't know what societies suffused with Islam are like. No compromise. Victor and vanquished. Until another despot comes along, to rule over this or that segment of what was once, but is unlikely to ever be again, Iraq.

And may both sides win.

Posted by Hugh at November 8, 2006 02:13 PM |

rita said...

Wow Hugh, that was quite a thorough analysis of the situation and possible future. Definitely those types of thoughts enter the mind of every person who has knowledge of the situation, but that was very nicely put together. You should publish that somewhere where more can read it. If it turns out that way, it will all be very, very unfortunate, as of course, it will be the innocent that die.

Majed Jarrar said...


Thanks for sharing the knowledge you have with everyone, it is a very thorough analysis as Rita mentioned...

The most important point that I wish if the US administration could understand, is that they need to worry only about what they should do. All the bullcrap about what will happen to Iraqis or who will protect the Sunnis if Americans left Iraq is completely irrelevant and not the case. The case here is that Americans must completely withdraw their troops from Iraq. Americans are not protecting neither Sunnis nor anyone, they can't even protect themselves.

As for the internal Iraqi issue, it will be dealt be Iraqis. Just like any country that has its sovereignty and independence, internal issues are solved internally, a simple example is how Sunnis and Shee'a managed to live together for the past millennium and a half without any sectarian tension whatsoever (In Iraq, the inter-marriages between the two sects are numerous! Almost all my friends from high school in Baghdad had at least one direct relative who is of the other sect [parent, uncle's wife, etc...]).

The fact that US invaded Somalia, and that UK invaded Sierra Leon, and couple of other 'humanitarian' outlawed military interventions, does not make interventionism a right ideology in itself; those were rare exceptions. Look at examples like the three and half years of bloodshed in Iraq, look at the ruins of cities that used to be called Afghanistan.

The issue of Islam and Jihad is also irrelevent here. The focal point here is, Americans must completely un-do their horrible mistakes in Iraq. They must pull out their troops immediately, and compensate the damage that they have caused to the country and the people.

Anonymous said...

How long did it take for Yugoslavia to chill out after the end of the dictatorship?

Anonymous said...